Review : The LY294002 Positives And Downsides

Data collection was entirely performed by a single investigator (JC), over a period of 3?months. Statistical analysis used the SPSS? software package, version 14.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). Quantitative variables were compared on Student t test in case of normal distribution, or otherwise on non-parametric Wilcoxon or Kruskal-Wallis tests. Categoric variables were analyzed by chi2, or Fisher exact test when expected sample sizes were less than 5. The significance threshold was set at p?JQ1 responded to the questionnaire (Table 1), showing no significant differences with respect to the population as a whole. A written trace of information provided, notably concerning surgical risk/benefit, was found in the patients�� medical files (usually in the pre-operative consultation report) in 61% of cases (n?=?57). There were no significant differences in this regard between junior and senior physicians (65% versus 55%, p?=?0.33). Forty-two of the 70?respondents had been initially admitted to the Emergency Department. There were no significant differences between these patients and those going directly into orthopedic consultation (Table 2). Table 3 presents the information supplied in the Emergency Department. The source was most often the senior Emergency physician (60%). ACL tear was diagnosed in 67% of cases, but only about 15% to 25% of patients received information on such matters as ACL function and the impact of tearing, pain management, the need for early rehabilitation or the foreseeable duration of time off work and sport. The information provided was well understood LY294002 by the patient in two-thirds of cases. The option of surgery was raised with half of the patients, but without going into the details of procedure, complications or expected results. All patients were fitted with a knee splint; analgesics were prescribed systematically, anti-inflammatories in 47% of cases and anti-coagulants in 7%. All but three of these patients were referred on to orthopedic consultation, the other three being referred to their family doctor or to an orthopedic surgeon outside of the hospital system. The orthopedic consultation took place at a mean 8?��?6.5?days (range, two to 24?days) post-trauma QA (Table 4). In 34?cases, the physician was senior and in 36?cases junior. After the consultation, all patients were aware of their ACL tear (compared to 67% see more in emergency), and almost all had been informed of the consequences. The option of surgery was raised systematically, but the detailed procedure was explained in only 80% of cases, complications in 70% and expected results in 30%. Rehabilitation was explained in detail to 20% of patients and the likely duration of time off work and sport to 60%. Thirty-eight patients (54%) had researched ACL reconstruction, usually via the Internet; sites consulted, however, were rarely institutional or academic society sites (Table 5).